Like most Australians, I am against intolerant behaviour on religious grounds – or the reverse – from either extreme. It’s easy to say that in principle, of course. It’s how this is translated into daily life that has become more difficult to manage given the increasing tendency in modern Australia to push litigation or identity politics to the edge. Look no further than the deplorable state of open debate and the willingness to take offence now evident in university culture.
And I admit to personal hypocrisy and, yes, prejudice. Despite shocking behaviour revealed in some parts of the Catholic church and Catholic schools, for example, I am still concerned the religious freedom afforded Muslim schools may allow some to perhaps teach attitudes, from the role of women to the appeal of radical Islam, that I believe have no place in modern Australian society.
But that prospect really is a different country for me so I shrug and hope for the best.
Nor is it at all clear to me that setting up a Freedom of Religion Commissioner in the Australian Human Rights Commission will assist.
After all, most people conduct their lives not in black and white but in tones of grey, governed more by compromise than absolutes. Will a bill of religious freedom make much difference to that?
Challenges at the edge
Instead, the feverish political debate over religious freedom reminds me more of the years of anguish in both parties over same-sex marriage. Despite the turbulence, particularly in the Liberal Party, the majority of the broader community had already moved past the barrier – as demonstrated by the results of the plebiscite.
So religious institutions may still insist on their right to be able to teach that marriage is between a man and a woman but it’s clear that practical reality has overtaken them.
Yes, it was always possible to cite the case of the infamous baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Just as it was possible to find a gay couple determined to take that baker to court rather than find another wedding cake maker.
Just as it will presumably be possible to fight a court case over the example of a transitioning transgender person offended by lack of agreed facilities in a church or a school. Or of a same-sex couple demanding to be married in a resistant church.
There will be examples of abuses of rights on all sides, including from those most determined to test the limits of the law and of tolerance on the grounds of tolerance.
Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, says Australians’ propensity to “live and let live” on issues of religion is being tested by “hard-edged secularism” determined to stamp out religion from public life and therefore requiring religious discrimination legislation.
The passion involved in the arguments is certainly increasing.
But most are going to be instances of challenges at the edge – not just of the experience of most people but of any application of common sense. That really is the much greater Australian virtue that has not received enough attention in this discussion – opposed to what is on display in federal parliament.
There’s plenty of hypocrisy on show there too.
Solution in search of a problem
The promise to hold a review was part of Turnbull’s attempt to quell the opposition from the Liberal Party’s social conservatives about the idea of same-sex marriage. But in many ways, it was a solution in search of a problem.
The most sensitive issue is that of the rights of gay kids to not face discrimination, including in religious schools.
That is somewhat more significant in Australia given the relatively high percentage of religiously-affiliated schools in this country.
What is obvious is that most people – including both Labor and Coalition parties – are in violent agreement that schools, even in theory, shouldn’t be able to discriminate against gay students.
But as usual, the politicians couldn’t agree on the details of a bill to sort this out by the time the parliamentary season ended. The rights of gay teachers is a little vaguer.
The government’s decision is to now send this issue off to the Australian Law Reform Commission for yet another protracted review. Of course!
Morrison is making it plain that he intends to use the prospect of a major change in religious discrimination laws as a part of the next election campaign. That may excite some people and reignite another version of culture wars.
But for most voters, including those of religious faith, the argument will remain beside the point. So much for pragmatism. Principle is in the eye of the beholder.
from A Viral Update https://ift.tt/2PB75on
0 Comments